get-world-timeRetrieve the current world time in seconds, formatted by the world's calendar if set, and see whether the game is paused.
Read Foundry's world time in seconds, formatted by the world's calendar when one is configured, and whether the game is paused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v14.2609.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail the annotations do not: the returned time is in seconds, formatting may change when a calendar is configured, and the pause state is included. Since there is no output schema, this added return-value context is valuable, though the calendar-formatting behavior is slightly under-specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action first and packs all essential return information into a compact structure. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition of annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is complete enough: it states what is read, the units, the conditional calendar behavior, and the additional pause-state output. No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers what an agent needs to know before calling the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Read'), the resource ('Foundry's world time'), and the key output components (seconds, calendar formatting, pause state). This distinguishes it from sibling mutating tools like advance-world-time and set-game-pause without needing to open their definitions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description establishes clear context: use this tool when you need to read the current world time or pause state. It does not explicitly contrast with advance-world-time or set-game-pause, but the read-only framing makes the intended usage obvious and there are no misleading exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.